Since its emergence in December 2019, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been the subject of intense research assessing all facets of the pathogen and its rapid global spread. Serology – the measurement of serum antibodies – provides crucial data for understanding key aspects of infection and epidemiology (Weitz et al., 2020). At the level of populations, serologic data can provide insights into virus spread by enabling estimation of the overall attack rate, and seroprevalence estimates can elucidate the potential for herd immunity (Stringhini et al., 2020; Bryant et al., 2020). In addition, these estimates are essential for developing accurate mathematical models of virus transmission dynamics, which provide the foundation for policies to reopen societies (Krsak et al., 2020; Angulo et al., 2020; Kissler et al., 2020). At the level of individuals, the presence and concentration of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 are indicators of past exposure, providing insights over a much wider temporal window than other metrics. When considered jointly with PCR testing to detect viral RNA, antibodies substantially improve the probability of detecting present and past infections (Prager et al., 2019). This improvement is highly valuable because RNA detection is typically limited to a relatively brief period of infection, and because PCR sensitivity varies considerably with infection severity and biological sample type (Azkur et al., 2020; Yongchen et al., 2020). Assessment of the levels of different antibody types (e.g. IgG, IgM) may even be used to infer approximately when individuals became infected (Azkur et al., 2020; Chang et al., 2005; Du et al., 2020; Borremans et al., 2016), while detection of neutralizing antibodies may indicate protection from reinfection (Ni et al., 2020).

These applications of serologic data depend critically on knowing when different antibodies against the pathogen become detectable (seroconversion time), how their concentrations change over time (antibody level kinetics) and how long they last (antibody decay) (Lipsitch et al., 2020). When these key factors are known, serologic data become a powerful tool for inferring infection attack rate and transmission dynamics in the population (Bryant et al., 2020; Winter and Hegde, 2020). Five months into the pandemic, a remarkable number of serologic studies on the initial immune response against SARS-CoV-2 had been published. These studies were conducted in different laboratories, used different assays and sampling methods, and were performed on different patient groups that showed different clinical manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Whitman et al., 2020; Lassaunière et al., 2020; Kontou et al., 2020).

This extensive variation arising from many sources creates substantial challenges for integrating existing data into one coherent picture of antibody kinetics and viral RNA detection following SARS-CoV-2 infection. In 21 studies reporting the kinetics of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, we found the use of 8 different antibody assays, 10 different target antigens, and 9 different reported antibody level units (studies are listed in the Materials and methods section). Additionally, the temporal resolution at which studies collect data is highly variable: while some studies report antibody measurements for specific days, many bin results into periods of multiple days or even weeks. Integrated analysis of such diverse data is challenging, and requires statistical methods specifically developed for this purpose. Yet this type of integration is essential to capitalize on the limited and precious data available, to assess to what degree antibody and RNA detection patterns are affected by assay type and target antigen choice, and to establish consensus patterns. For example, a properly integrated analysis would better enable us to test whether antibody patterns depend on disease severity (Huang et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2020).

In this study, we quantified IgG and IgM antibody kinetics and RNA detection probability during SARS-CoV-2 infection (up to 60 days post-symptom onset) by aggregating data from published sources. We formally characterized IgG and IgM seroconversion times, detection probabilities over time and antibody level kinetics using methods tailored to accommodate the diverse ways in which data have been collected and reported. We investigated how these variables are affected by disease severity, assay type and targeted antigen, and how patterns differ between IgG and IgM. We also assessed how antibody level kinetics relate to the probability of detecting viral RNA in various biological samples. We estimated mean values as well as observed variation of all variables in order to provide the complete picture required to interpret serological and RNA testing data, inform mitigation strategies and parameterize mathematical models of pathogen transmission while accounting for variability. This formal integration approach enabled us to leverage 3214 data points from 516 individuals with symptoms ranging from asymptomatic to critical, published in 21 studies, resulting in a quantitative synthesis of diverse data on anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody patterns and RNA detection during the early phase of infection.

By leveraging and integrating multiple data sources on key aspects of the antibody response against SARS-CoV-2, we were able to produce quantitative estimates of the mean and variation of seroconversion timing, antibody level kinetics, and the changes in antibody and RNA detection probabilities. These results provide critical reference information for serological surveys, assay sensitivity and risk of false-negative results, transmission models and herd immunity assessments. By combining data from 21 different studies using different assays, antigens, protocols and patient groups, we were able to quantify the means and, crucially, the extent of variation of important serologic and RNA detection parameters. Together, these antibody and RNA detection probability patterns provide an essential evidence base for informing sampling designs (Table 1). Figure 4 provides an overview of the key patterns.

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

Seroconversion time is highly variable between individuals, with a mean around 12–13 days post-symptom onset. We find that IgG and IgM can be detected as early as 0 days post-symptom onset in 10–20% of patients, which indicates that seroconversion can happen at, and likely before, the onset of detectable symptoms. To our knowledge, seroconversion prior to symptom onset has not been reported, which is likely due to the fact that such cases are typically not under investigation using serologic assays. By integrating a wide range of data sources, we detect greater variation in seroconversion timing than previously observed, and importantly, it was possible to quantify the distributions around the mean seroconversion times (Huang et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2020; Haveri et al., 2020).

Patterns of IgM and IgG detection align with immunological expectations, as IgM antibodies are typically present during the early phase of the immune response, while IgG antibodies remain detectable for much longer periods (Xiao et al., 2020). We detected IgG and IgM antibodies in nearly all (98–100%) individuals by days 22–23 post-symptom onset, consistent with recent findings (Kraay et al., 2020). While IgG detection remains at this level for at least the range of times in the dataset (60 days for ELISA-Spike), the proportion of IgM-positive samples decreases after roughly 28 days post symptom onset, reaching around 65% by day 60. In other words, a growing proportion of individuals loses detectable IgM from day 30 onwards. We also detect a robust effect of viral antigen, where responses against NP rise faster than those against Spike, for both IgM and IgG. The quantification of changes in detection probability over time is relevant for clinical testing and assay choice and will determine test sensitivity (Sethuraman et al., 2020).

It has been postulated that disease severity and humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2 are correlated, but results so far have been inconclusive (Okba et al., 2020). Here, we did not detect any significant effects of disease severity on antibody patterns, with the single exception that we estimated a lower rate of IgM increase in severe/critical cases relative to mild/moderate cases. Regarding seroconversion times, an earlier study analyzed 28 cases to find that IgM seroconversion times appeared to be the same for severe and non-severe cases, but their analysis of 45 cases showed that IgG seroconversion was earlier for severe cases (Tan et al., 2020). Similarly, earlier seroconversion in severe cases has been observed for SARS-CoV-1 (Lee et al., 2006), but this result was not consistent across studies (Chan et al., 2005). Our findings do not support the idea that severe cases seroconvert faster. Indeed, the only significant effect of severity in our analyses is that the inferred growth rate of IgM levels is slower for severe/critical cases. It is not clear whether this reflects a relevant biological difference, considering that all other parameters do not differ among disease severity categories. The consensus patterns from our meta-analysis suggest that any interaction between disease severity and antibody response must be subtle and sensitive to other sources of variation, explaining the inconsistencies seen across studies. Note that the IgG seroconversion histogram for severe/critical cases (Figure 1d) appears bimodal, with fewer datapoints between 13 and 18 days post-symptom onset. This could either be a consequence of an underrepresentation of these times in the different studies or a signal of a true underlying pattern, but unfortunately the data to distinguish between these two hypotheses are not currently available.

Given the finding that disease severity does not have major effects on early-phase antibody patterns, and assuming no cryptic relationship between severity and the factors governing protective immunity, then mild cases could be substantial contributors to the development of herd immunity development. This finding may also be important for vaccine efficacy; however, it is not yet known whether the presence of IgG or IgM correlates with protective immunity (Altmann et al., 2020), although we do observe a similar pattern for neutralizing antibody detection (Figure 2a).

The extensive individual variation in antibody patterns, which is a common phenomenon across many viral infections (Pacis et al., 2014), may affect the accuracy of transmission models (Weitz et al., 2020). For example, if seroconversion times reflect the actual end of infectiousness and onset of immunity (i.e. the transition from Infectious to Removed in SEIR-type models Li et al., 2020), the observed range of 0 to 40 days post-symptom onset may need to be represented in the infectious period distribution. It is important to carefully consider how this variation may affect model conclusions, and whether it should be taken into account explicitly (Wearing et al., 2005), especially given the heavy reliance of policy-makers on COVID-19 transmission models (Kissler et al., 2020).

We observed clear patterns of RNA detection that have several important implications, particularly for sampling designs. First, it is clear that the probability of detecting RNA is highly dependent on sample type, consistent with previous observations (Tan et al., 2020; Memish et al., 2014). Lower respiratory tract samples have the highest probability of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, particularly after about 15 days post-symptom onset. During the first 8 days, 100% of lower respiratory tract samples tested positive for RNA. While detection probabilities for fecal and upper respiratory tract samples are nearly this high at symptom onset, they decrease much more rapidly, with the lowest average detection probabilities for upper respiratory samples. Nevertheless, it appears that by 30 days post-symptom onset detection probability approaches zero for all sample types, although it is important to note that the dataset did not include lower respiratory samples beyond day 29, which means that the true detection endpoint in lower respiratory samples could not be determined. These results match those from multiple studies (Tan et al., 2020; To et al., 2020; Sethuraman et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2020). When interpreting results on RNA detection, it is important to note that the presence of RNA does not necessarily imply the presence of live virus (Theel et al., 2020; Wölfel et al., 2020).

One potential caveat for any analysis of data reported as time since symptom onset is that variation in the incubation period (time between infection and symptom onset) can affect the estimated timing of antibody kinetics and RNA detection. The mean incubation period is estimated to be around 7–8 days, with a standard deviation of 4.4 (Ma et al., 2020). The clear antibody and RNA detection patterns we observe here suggest that the effect of this variation does not obscure broad patterns, but relative results may be affected if the incubation period differs between certain groups of individuals. This could indeed be the case for disease severity, as mild cases are estimated to have a longer incubation period (8.3 days) than severe cases (6.5 days) (Ma et al., 2020).

In summary, this study provides an up-to-date, comprehensive reference of key antibody and RNA detection parameters, including estimates of variation that can be used to inform serological surveys and transmission models (Table 1). As more data on SARS-CoV-2 become available, parameters can be updated through the use of the algorithms made available in the accompanying R code.

All data are available in Source data 1.

1. Preprint

   1. Adams E
   2. Ainsworth M
   3. Anand R
   4. Andersson M
   5. Auckland K
   6. Jk B

   (2020) Antibody testing for COVID-19: a report from the national COVID scientific advisory panel

   medRxiv.

   https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.15.20066407

   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Altmann DM
   2. Douek DC
   3. Boyton RJ

   (2020) What policy makers need to know about COVID-19 protective immunity

   Lancet 6736:19–21.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30985-5

   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Angulo FJ
   2. Finelli L
   3. Swerdlow DL

   (2020) Reopening society and the need for Real-Time assessment of COVID-19 at the community level

   Jama 323:2247.

   https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.7872

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Azkur AK
   2. Akdis M
   3. Azkur D
   4. Sokolowska M
   5. Veen W
   6. Brüggen M‐C
   7. O’Mahony L
   8. Gao Y
   9. Nadeau K
   10. Akdis CA

   (2020) Immune response to sars‐cov‐2 and mechanisms of immunopathological changes in covid‐19

   Allergy 75:1564–1581.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/all.14364

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Borremans B
   2. Hens N
   3. Beutels P
   4. Leirs H
   5. Reijniers J

   (2016) Estimating time of infection using prior serological and individual information can greatly improve incidence estimation of human and wildlife infections

   PLOS Computational Biology 12:e1004882.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004882

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Bryant JE
   2. Azman AS
   3. Ferrari MJ
   4. Arnold BF
   5. Boni MF
   6. Boum Y
   7. Hayford K
   8. Luquero FJ
   9. Mina MJ
   10. Rodriguez-Barraquer I
   11. Wu JT
   12. Wade D
   13. Vernet G
   14. Leung DT

   (2020) Serology for SARS-CoV-2: apprehensions, opportunities, and the path forward

   Science Immunology 5:eabc6347.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/sciimmunol.abc6347

   • Google Scholar
7. Report

   1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

   (2019) Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)

   National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD).

   https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Chan KH
   2. Cheng VC
   3. Woo PC
   4. Lau SK
   5. Poon LL
   6. Guan Y
   7. Seto WH
   8. Yuen KY
   9. Peiris JS

   (2005) Serological responses in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection and cross-reactivity with human coronaviruses 229E, OC43, and NL63

   Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology 12:1317–1321.

   https://doi.org/10.1128/CDLI.12.11.1317-1321.2005

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Chang SC
   2. Wang JT
   3. Huang LM
   4. Chen YC
   5. Fang CT
   6. Sheng WH
   7. Wang JL
   8. Yu CJ
   9. Yang PC

   (2005) Longitudinal analysis of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus-specific antibody in SARS patients

   Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology 12:1455–1457.

   https://doi.org/10.1128/CDLI.12.12.1455-1457.2005

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. Software

    1. Dorai-Raj S

    (2014) binom: Binomial confidence intervals for several parameterizations, version 1.1-2

    R-Forge.

    https://rdrr.io/rforge/binom/
11. 1. Du Z
    2. Zhu F
    3. Guo F
    4. Yang B
    5. Wang T

    (2020) Detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19

    Journal of Medical Virology 57:jmv.25820.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25820

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Giordano G
    2. Blanchini F
    3. Bruno R
    4. Colaneri P
    5. Di Filippo A
    6. Di Matteo A
    7. Colaneri M

    (2020) Modelling the COVID-19 epidemic and implementation of population-wide interventions in Italy

    Nature Medicine 26:855–860.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0883-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. Preprint

    1. Guo X
    2. Guo Z
    3. Duan C
    4. Chen Z
    5. Wang G
    6. Lu Y

    (2020) Long-Term persistence of IgG antibodies in SARS-CoV infected healthcare workers

    medRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.12.20021386

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Haveri A
    2. Smura T
    3. Kuivanen S
    4. Österlund P
    5. Hepojoki J
    6. Ikonen N
    7. Pitkäpaasi M
    8. Blomqvist S
    9. Rönkkö E
    10. Kantele A
    11. Strandin T
    12. Kallio-Kokko H
    13. Mannonen L
    14. Lappalainen M
    15. Broas M
    16. Jiang M
    17. Siira L
    18. Salminen M
    19. Puumalainen T
    20. Sane J
    21. Melin M
    22. Vapalahti O
    23. Savolainen-Kopra C

    (2020) Serological and molecular findings during SARS-CoV-2 infection: the first case study in Finland, January to February 2020

    Eurosurveillance 25:2000266.

    https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.11.2000266

    • Google Scholar
15. Preprint

    1. Huang AT
    2. Garcia-Carreras B
    3. Hitchings MDT
    4. Yang B
    5. Katzelnick L
    6. Rattigan SM

    (2020) A systematic review of antibody mediated immunity to coronaviruses: antibody kinetics, correlates of protection, and association of antibody responses with severity of disease

    medRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.14.20065771

    • Google Scholar
16. Preprint

    1. Jiang H
    2. Li Y
    3. Zhang H
    4. Wang W
    5. Men D
    6. Yang X

    (2020) Global profiling of SARS-CoV-2 specific IgG/ IgM responses of convalescents using a proteome microarray

    medRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.20.20039495

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Kissler SM
    2. Tedijanto C
    3. Goldstein E
    4. Grad YH
    5. Lipsitch M

    (2020) Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through the postpandemic period

    Science 368:860–868.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb5793

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. Preprint

    1. Kontou PI
    2. Braliou GG
    3. Dimou NL
    4. Nikolopoulos G
    5. Bagos PG

    (2020) Antibody tests in detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection: a meta-analysis

    medRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.22.20074914

    • Google Scholar
19. Preprint

    1. Kraay ANM
    2. Nelson KN
    3. Zhao CY
    4. Weitz JS
    5. Lopman BA

    (2020) Modeling serological testing to inform relaxation of social distancing for COVID-19 control

    medRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.24.20078576

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Krsak M
    2. Johnson SC
    3. Poeschla EM

    (2020) COVID-19 serosurveillance may facilitate Return-to-Work decisions

    The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 102:1189–1190.

    https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.20-0302

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Kucharski AJ
    2. Russell TW
    3. Diamond C
    4. Liu Y
    5. Edmunds J
    6. Funk S
    7. Eggo RM
    8. Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases COVID-19 working group

    (2020) Early dynamics of transmission and control of COVID-19: a mathematical modelling study

    The Lancet Infectious Diseases 20:553–558.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30144-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Kucirka L
    2. Lauer S
    3. Laeyendecker O
    4. Boon D
    5. Lessler J

    (2020) Variation in false negative rate of RT-PCR based SARS-CoV-2 tests by time since exposure

    Annals of Internal Medicine 13:M20-1495.

    https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-1495

    • Google Scholar
23. Preprint

    1. Lassaunière R
    2. Frische A
    3. Harboe ZB
    4. Nielsen AC
    5. Fomsgaard A
    6. Krogfelt KA

    (2020) Evaluation of nine commercial SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays

    medRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.09.20056325

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Lee N
    2. Chan PK
    3. Ip M
    4. Wong E
    5. Ho J
    6. Ho C
    7. Cockram CS
    8. Hui DS

    (2006) Anti-SARS-CoV IgG response in relation to disease severity of severe acute respiratory syndrome

    Journal of Clinical Virology 35:179–184.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2005.07.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Lee NY
    2. Li CW
    3. Tsai HP
    4. Chen PL
    5. Syue LS
    6. Li MC
    7. Tsai CS
    8. Lo CL
    9. Hsueh PR
    10. Ko WC

    (2020) A case of COVID-19 and pneumonia returning from macau in Taiwan: clinical course and anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG dynamic

    Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection 53:485–487.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmii.2020.03.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Li R
    2. Pei S
    3. Chen B
    4. Song Y
    5. Zhang T
    6. Yang W
    7. Shaman J

    (2020) Substantial undocumented infection facilitates the rapid dissemination of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2)

    Science 368:489–493.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb3221

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Lipsitch M
    2. Kahn R
    3. Mina MJ

    (2020) Antibody testing will enhance the power and accuracy of COVID-19-prevention trials

    Nature Medicine 26:818–819.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0887-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Liu W
    2. Liu L
    3. Kou G
    4. Zheng Y
    5. Ding Y
    6. Ni W
    7. Wang Q
    8. Tan L
    9. Wu W
    10. Tang S
    11. Xiong Z
    12. Zheng S

    (2020a) Evaluation of nucleocapsid and spike Protein-Based Enzyme-Linked immunosorbent assays for detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2

    Journal of Clinical Microbiology 58:e00461-20.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00461-20

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Liu L
    2. Liu W
    3. Zheng Y
    4. Jiang X
    5. Kou G
    6. Ding J
    7. Wang Q
    8. Huang Q
    9. Ding Y
    10. Ni W
    11. Wu W
    12. Tang S
    13. Tan L
    14. Hu Z
    15. Xu W
    16. Zhang Y
    17. Zhang B
    18. Tang Z
    19. Zhang X
    20. Li H
    21. Rao Z
    22. Jiang H
    23. Ren X
    24. Wang S
    25. Zheng S

    (2020b) A preliminary study on serological assay for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 238 admitted hospital patients

    Microbes and Infection 22:206–211.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2020.05.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. Preprint

    1. Long Q
    2. Deng H
    3. Chen J
    4. Hu J
    5. Liu B
    6. Liao P

    (2020) Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 patients: the perspective application of serological tests in clinical practice

    medRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.18.20038018

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Lou B
    2. Li T-D ZS-F
    3. Y-Y S
    4. Li Z-Y LW

    (2020) Serology characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 infection since exposure and post symptom onset

    The European Respiratory Journal 56:00763-2020.

    https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00763-2020

    • Google Scholar
32. Preprint

    1. Ma S
    2. Zhang J
    3. Zeng M
    4. Yun Q
    5. Guo W
    6. Zheng Y

    (2020) Epidemiological parameters of coronavirus disease 2019: a pooled analysis of publicly reported individual data of 1155 cases from seven countries

    medRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.21.20040329

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Memish ZA
    2. Al-Tawfiq JA
    3. Makhdoom HQ
    4. Assiri A
    5. Alhakeem RF
    6. Albarrak A
    7. Alsubaie S
    8. Al-Rabeeah AA
    9. Hajomar WH
    10. Hussain R
    11. Kheyami AM
    12. Almutairi A
    13. Azhar EI
    14. Drosten C
    15. Watson SJ
    16. Kellam P
    17. Cotten M
    18. Zumla A

    (2014) Respiratory tract samples, viral load, and genome fraction yield in patients with middle east respiratory syndrome

    Journal of Infectious Diseases 210:1590–1594.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiu292

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. Preprint

    1. Ni L
    2. Ye F
    3. Chen M-L
    4. Feng Y
    5. Deng Y-Q
    6. Zhao H

    (2020) Characterization of anti-viral immunity in recovered individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2

    medRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.17.20036640

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Okba NMA
    2. Müller MA
    3. Li W
    4. Wang C
    5. GeurtsvanKessel CH
    6. Corman VM
    7. Lamers MM
    8. Sikkema RS
    9. de Bruin E
    10. Chandler FD
    11. Yazdanpanah Y
    12. Le Hingrat Q
    13. Descamps D
    14. Houhou-Fidouh N
    15. Reusken C
    16. Bosch BJ
    17. Drosten C
    18. Koopmans MPG
    19. Haagmans BL

    (2020) Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-Specific antibody responses in coronavirus disease patients

    Emerging Infectious Diseases 26:1478–1488.

    https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2607.200841

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Pacis A
    2. Nédélec Y
    3. Barreiro LB

    (2014) When genetics meets epigenetics: deciphering the mechanisms controlling inter-individual variation in immune responses to infection

    Current Opinion in Immunology 29:119–126.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coi.2014.06.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. Software

    1. Pedersen TL

    (2019) patchwork: The composer of plots, version 1.0.1

    CRAN.

    https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=patchwork
38. Software

    1. Plummer M

    (2019) rjags: Bayesian graphical models using MCMC, version 4-10

    CRAN.

    http://mcmc-jags.sourceforge.net
39. Preprint

    1. Prager KC
    2. Buhnerkempe MG
    3. Greig DJ
    4. Orr AJ
    5. Jensen ED
    6. Gomez F

    (2019) Mapping the Host-Pathogen space to link longitudinal and Cross-sectional biomarker data: leptospira infection in California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) as a case study

    bioRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/819532

    • Google Scholar
40. Software

    1. R Development Core Team

    (2019) R: A language and environment for statistical computing, version 2.6.2

    R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

    http://www.r-project.org
41. 1. Released by National Health Commission & National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine on March 3, 2020

    (2020) Diagnosis and treatment protocol for novel coronavirus pneumonia (Trial version 7)

    Chinese Medical Journal 133:1087–1095.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000000819

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. Software

    1. Rohatgi A

    (2019) WebPlotDigitizer, version 4.3

    Github.

    https://github.com/ankitrohatgi/WebPlotDigitizer/releases
43. 1. Sethuraman N
    2. Jeremiah SS
    3. Ryo A

    (2020) Interpreting diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2

    Jama 323:2249.

    https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.8259

    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Sms L
    2. Young GA

    (2003) Prepivoting by weighted bootstrap iteration

    Biometrika 90:393–410.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/30042048

    • Google Scholar
45. Preprint

    1. Stringhini S
    2. Wisniak A
    3. Piumatti G
    4. Azman AS
    5. Stephen A
    6. Baysson H

    (2020) Repeated seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in a population-based sample

    medRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.02.20088898

    • Google Scholar
46. Preprint

    1. Tan W
    2. Lu Y
    3. Zhang J
    4. Wang J
    5. Dan Y
    6. Tan Z

    (2020) Viral kinetics and antibody responses in patients with COVID-19

    medRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.24.20042382

    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Theel ES
    2. Slev P
    3. Wheeler S
    4. Couturier MR
    5. Wong SJ
    6. Kadkhoda K

    (2020) The role of antibody testing for SARS-CoV-2: is there one?

    Journal of Clinical Microbiology 58:e00797-20.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00797-20

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Thevarajan I
    2. Nguyen THO
    3. Koutsakos M
    4. Druce J
    5. Caly L
    6. van de Sandt CE
    7. Jia X
    8. Nicholson S
    9. Catton M
    10. Cowie B
    11. Tong SYC
    12. Lewin SR
    13. Kedzierska K

    (2020) Breadth of concomitant immune responses prior to patient recovery: a case report of non-severe COVID-19

    Nature Medicine 26:453–455.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0819-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. To KK
    2. Tsang OT
    3. Leung WS
    4. Tam AR
    5. Wu TC
    6. Lung DC
    7. Yip CC
    8. Cai JP
    9. Chan JM
    10. Chik TS
    11. Lau DP
    12. Choi CY
    13. Chen LL
    14. Chan WM
    15. Chan KH
    16. Ip JD
    17. Ng AC
    18. Poon RW
    19. Luo CT
    20. Cheng VC
    21. Chan JF
    22. Hung IF
    23. Chen Z
    24. Chen H
    25. Yuen KY

    (2020) Temporal profiles of viral load in posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples and serum antibody responses during infection by SARS-CoV-2: an observational cohort study

    The Lancet. Infectious Diseases 20:565–574.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30196-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Wearing HJ
    2. Rohani P
    3. Keeling MJ

    (2005) Appropriate models for the management of infectious diseases

    PLOS Medicine 2:e174.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020174

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Weitz JS
    2. Beckett SJ
    3. Coenen AR
    4. Demory D
    5. Dominguez-Mirazo M
    6. Dushoff J
    7. Leung CY
    8. Li G
    9. Măgălie A
    10. Park SW
    11. Rodriguez-Gonzalez R
    12. Shivam S
    13. Zhao CY

    (2020) Modeling shield immunity to reduce COVID-19 epidemic spread

    Nature Medicine 26:849–854.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0895-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. Preprint

    1. Whitman JD
    2. Hiatt J
    3. Mowery CT
    4. Shy BR
    5. Yu R
    6. Yamamoto TN

    (2020) Test performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays

    medRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.25.20074856

    • Google Scholar
53. Book

    1. Wickham H

    (2016) Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis

    New York: Springer-Verlag.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4

    • Google Scholar
54. Software

    1. Wickham H
    2. François R
    3. Henry L
    4. Müller K

    (2019) dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation, version 1.0.2

    GitHub.

    https://github.com/tidyverse/dplyr
55. Software

    1. Wickham H
    2. Bryan J

    (2019a) readxl: Read excel files, version 1.3.1

    CRAN.

    https://readxl.tidyverse.org
56. Software

    1. Wickham H
    2. Henry L

    (2019b) tidyr: Tidy messy data, version 1.1.2

    CRAN.

    https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyr
57. Software

    1. Wilke CO

    (2020) ggridges: Ridgelines plots in 'ggplot2', version 1.3.0

    CRAN.

    https://cran.r-project.org/package=ggridges
58. 1. Winter AK
    2. Hegde ST

    (2020) The important role of serology for COVID-19 control

    The Lancet Infectious Diseases 20:758–759.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30322-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Wölfel R
    2. Corman VM
    3. Guggemos W
    4. Seilmaier M
    5. Zange S
    6. Müller MA
    7. Niemeyer D
    8. Jones TC
    9. Vollmar P
    10. Rothe C
    11. Hoelscher M
    12. Bleicker T
    13. Brünink S
    14. Schneider J
    15. Ehmann R
    16. Zwirglmaier K
    17. Drosten C
    18. Wendtner C

    (2020) Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019

    Nature 581:465–469.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2196-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. Website

    1. World Health Organization

    (2020) Clinical management of severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) when COVID-19 disease is suspected: interim guidance

    Accessed April 12, 2020.

    https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331446/WHO-2019-nCoV-clinical-2020.4-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
61. 1. Xiang F
    2. Wang X
    3. He X
    4. Peng Z
    5. Yang B
    6. Zhang J

    (2020) Antibody detection and dynamic characteristics in patients with COVID-19

    Clinical Infectious Diseases 23:ciaa461.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa461

    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Xiao AT
    2. Gao C
    3. Zhang S

    (2020) Profile of specific antibodies to SARS-CoV-2: the first report

    Journal of Infection 81:147–178.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2020.03.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Yongchen Z
    2. Shen H
    3. Wang X
    4. Shi X
    5. Li Y
    6. Yan J
    7. Chen Y
    8. Gu B

    (2020) Different longitudinal patterns of nucleic acid and serology testing results based on disease severity of COVID-19 patients

    Emerging Microbes & Infections 9:833–836.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/22221751.2020.1756699

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Young BE
    2. Ong SWX
    3. Kalimuddin S
    4. Low JG
    5. Tan SY
    6. Loh J
    7. Ng O-T
    8. Marimuthu K
    9. Ang LW
    10. Mak TM
    11. Lau SK
    12. Anderson DE
    13. Chan KS
    14. Tan TY
    15. Ng TY
    16. Cui L
    17. Said Z
    18. Kurupatham L
    19. Chen MI-C
    20. Chan M
    21. Vasoo S
    22. Wang L-F
    23. Tan BH
    24. Lin RTP
    25. Lee VJM
    26. Leo Y-S
    27. Lye DC
    28. for the Singapore 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak Research Team

    (2020) Epidemiologic features and clinical course of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Singapore

    Jama 323:1488–1494.

    https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.3204

    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Zhang W
    2. Du RH
    3. Li B
    4. Zheng XS
    5. Yang XL
    6. Hu B
    7. Wang YY
    8. Xiao GF
    9. Yan B
    10. Shi ZL
    11. Zhou P

    (2020a) Molecular and serological investigation of 2019-nCoV infected patients: implication of multiple shedding routes

    Emerging Microbes & Infections 9:386–389.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/22221751.2020.1729071

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. Preprint

    1. Zhang N
    2. Gong Y
    3. Meng F
    4. Bi Y
    5. Yang P
    6. Wang F

    (2020b) Virus shedding patterns in nasopharyngeal and fecal specimens of COVID-19 patients

    medRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.28.20043059

    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Zhang L
    2. Pang R
    3. Xue X
    4. Bao J
    5. Ye S
    6. Dai Y
    7. Zheng Y
    8. Fu Q
    9. Hu Z
    10. Yi Y

    (2020c) Anti-SARS-CoV-2 virus antibody levels in convalescent plasma of six donors who have recovered from COVID-19

    Aging 12:6536–6542.

    https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.103102

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. Preprint

    1. Zhao J
    2. Yuan Q
    3. Wang H
    4. Liu W
    5. Liao X
    6. Su Y

    (2020) Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients of novel coronavirus disease 2019

    medRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.02.20030189

    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Zhou P
    2. Yang XL
    3. Wang XG
    4. Hu B
    5. Zhang L
    6. Zhang W
    7. Si HR
    8. Zhu Y
    9. Li B
    10. Huang CL
    11. Chen HD
    12. Chen J
    13. Luo Y
    14. Guo H
    15. Jiang RD
    16. Liu MQ
    17. Chen Y
    18. Shen XR
    19. Wang X
    20. Zheng XS
    21. Zhao K
    22. Chen QJ
    23. Deng F
    24. Liu LL
    25. Yan B
    26. Zhan FX
    27. Wang YY
    28. Xiao GF
    29. Shi ZL

    (2020) A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin

    Nature 579:270–273.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Zou L
    2. Ruan F
    3. Huang M
    4. Liang L
    5. Huang H
    6. Hong Z
    7. Yu J
    8. Kang M
    9. Song Y
    10. Xia J
    11. Guo Q
    12. Song T
    13. He J
    14. Yen HL
    15. Peiris M
    16. Wu J

    (2020) SARS-CoV-2 viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients

    New England Journal of Medicine 382:1177–1179.

    https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2001737

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Benny Borremans

   1. Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
   2. I-BioStat, Data Science Institute, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium
   3. Evolutionary Ecology Group, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Supervision, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   For correspondence

   bennyborremans@gmail.com

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7779-4107

2. Amandine Gamble

   Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. KC Prager

   Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States

   Contribution

   Resources, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0669-0754

4. Sarah K Helman

   Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States

   Contribution

   Resources, Data curation, Investigation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Abby M McClain

   National Marine Mammal Foundation, San Diego, United States

   Contribution

   Resources, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5000-4198

6. Caitlin Cox

   Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States

   Contribution

   Resources, Investigation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Van Savage

   1. Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
   2. Biomathematics Department, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States

   Contribution

   Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. James O Lloyd-Smith

   Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7941-502X

• 3,600

  views

• 493

  downloads

• 60

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.